Optimizing military mental health and stress resilience training through the lens of trainee preferences: A conjoint analysis approach.

Effective mental health and stress resilience (MHSR) training is essential in military populations given their exposure to operational stressors. The scarcity of empirical evidence supporting the benefits of these programs emphasizes the need for research dedicated to program optimization. This paper aims to identify the relative importance of MHSR training attributes preferred by military members. Conjoint analysis (CA), an experimental method used to prioritize end-user preferences for product feature development, was conducted using an online survey with 567 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel. Participants made a series of choices between hypothetical MHSR training options that were systematically varied across seven training attributes. Each training attribute consisted of 3-4 variations in the nature of the attribute or its intensity. Participants also completed questions on health beliefs, mental health and previous MHSR training experiences, and demographics, to assess whether preferences varied by individual characteristics. CA demonstrated that instructor type, leadership buy-in, degree of skills practice, and content relevance/applicability were attributes of highest and relatively equal importance. This was followed by degree of accessible supplemental content. Lowest importance was placed on degree of behavioral nudging and demographic similarity between the trainee and trainer. Sociodemographic factors were not associated with MHSR training preferences. Programs that incorporate expert-led instruction, demonstrate leadership buy-in, embed practical applications within simulated stress environments, and provide a digitally-accessible platform to augment training may be well-received among military members. Understanding and accommodating personal preferences when designing MHSR training programs may increase relevance, foster acceptance and trust, and support sustained engagement.

Determinants of burnout in Canadian health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Health care workers (HCWs) are among the most vulnerable groups to experience burnout during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Understanding the risk and protective factors of burnout is crucial in guiding the development of interventions; however, the understanding of burnout determinants in the Canadian HCW population remains limited.Objective: Identify risk and protective factors associated with burnout in Canadian HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic and evaluate organizational factors as moderators in the relationship between COVID-19 contact and burnout.Methods: Data were drawn from an online longitudinal survey of Canadian HCWs collected between 26 June 2020 and 31 December 2020. Participants completed questions pertaining to their well-being, burnout, workplace support and concerns relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline data from 1029 HCWs were included in the analysis. Independent samples t-tests and multiple linear regression were used to evaluate factors associated with burnout scores.Results: HCWs in contact with COVID-19 patients showed significantly higher likelihood of probable burnout than HCWs not directly providing care to COVID-19 patients. Fewer years of work experience was associated with a higher likelihood of probable burnout, whereas stronger workplace support, organizational leadership, supervisory leadership, and a favourable ethical climate were associated with a decreased likelihood of probable burnout. Workplace support, organizational leadership, supervisory leadership, and ethical climate did not moderate the associations between contact with COVID-19 patients and burnout.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that HCWs who worked directly with COVID-19 patients, had fewer years of work experience, and perceived poor workplace support, organizational leadership, supervisory leadership and ethical climate were at higher risk of burnout. Ensuring reasonable work hours, adequate support from management, and fostering an ethical work environment are potential organizational-level strategies to maintain HCWs' well-being.

Canadian HCWs endorsed high levels of burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic.Having direct contact with COVID-19 patients and having fewer years of work experience were associated with a higher likelihood of probable burnout.Having stronger workplace support, greater perceived organizational and supervisory leadership, and a favourable ethical climate were associated with a lower likelihood of probable burnout.

A multi-study investigation assessing the potential redundancy among the Dark Tetrad using a narrowband trait approach.

We investigated the putative redundancy of the Dark Tetrad (specifically, Machiavellianism-psychopathy and sadism-psychopathy) through an examination of the differences between correlations with self-reported narrowband personality traits. In addition to measures of the Dark Tetrad, participants in four studies completed measures of various narrowband traits assessing general personality, aggression, impulsivity, Mimicry Deception Theory, and Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. Results generally supported empirical distinctions between Machiavellianism and psychopathy, and between sadism and psychopathy. Machiavellianism significantly differed from psychopathy across correlations for nine of 10 traits (Study 1), 8 of 25 facets (Study 2), aggression (Study 3), 12 of 25 facets (Study 3), four of five facets (Study 4), impulsivity (Study 4), and five of six facets (Study 4). Sadism significantly differed from psychopathy across correlations with five of 10 traits (Study 1), eight of 25 facets (Study 2), reactive aggression (Study 3), 10 of 25 facets (Study 3), three of six facets (Study 4), impulsivity (Study 4), and three of six facets (Study 4). Our findings challenge the claims that Machiavellianism and psychopathy, as well as sadism and psychopathy, as currently measured, are redundant.

Exposure to moral stressors and associated outcomes in healthcare workers: prevalence, correlates, and impact on job attrition.

Introduction: Healthcare workers (HCWs) often experience morally challenging situations in their workplaces that may contribute to job turnover and compromised well-being. This study aimed to characterize the nature and frequency of moral stressors experienced by HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic, examine their influence on psychosocial-spiritual factors, and capture the impact of such factors and related moral stressors on HCWs' self-reported job attrition intentions.Methods: A sample of 1204 Canadian HCWs were included in the analysis through a web-based survey platform whereby work-related factors (e.g. years spent working as HCW, providing care to COVID-19 patients), moral distress (captured by MMD-HP), moral injury (captured by MIOS), mental health symptomatology, and job turnover due to moral distress were assessed.Results: Moral stressors with the highest reported frequency and distress ratings included patient care requirements that exceeded the capacity HCWs felt safe/comfortable managing, reported lack of resource availability, and belief that administration was not addressing issues that compromised patient care. Participants who considered leaving their jobs (44%; N = 517) demonstrated greater moral distress and injury scores. Logistic regression highlighted burnout (AOR = 1.59; p < .001), moral distress (AOR = 1.83; p < .001), and moral injury due to trust violation (AOR = 1.30; p = .022) as significant predictors of the intention to leave one's job.Conclusion: While it is impossible to fully eliminate moral stressors from healthcare, especially during exceptional and critical scenarios like a global pandemic, it is crucial to recognize the detrimental impacts on HCWs. This underscores the urgent need for additional research to identify protective factors that can mitigate the impact of these stressors.

This study explored the nature of moral stressors encountered by health care workers, along with impacts on moral injury and intentions to leave their jobs.Morally distressing encounters were common, with the most prevalent and distressing experiences being organizational or team-based in nature.Findings revealed that severity of moral injury, particularly related to trust violation or betrayal, was a key factor influencing healthcare workers' intentions to leave their jobs.

Measuring moral distress and moral injury: A systematic review and content analysis of existing scales.

BACKGROUND: Moral distress (MD) and moral injury (MI) are related constructs describing the negative consequences of morally challenging stressors. Despite growing support for the clinical relevance of these constructs, ongoing challenges regarding measurement quality risk limiting research and clinical advances. This study summarizes the nature, quality, and utility of existing MD and MI scales, and provides recommendations for future use. METHOD: We identified psychometric studies describing the development or validation of MD or MI scales and extracted information on methodological and psychometric qualities. Content analyses identified specific outcomes measured by each scale. RESULTS: We reviewed 77 studies representing 42 unique scales. The quality of psychometric approaches varied greatly across studies, and most failed to examine convergent and divergent validity. Content analyses indicated most scales measure exposures to potential moral stressors and outcomes together, with relatively few measuring only exposures (n = 3) or outcomes (n = 7). Scales using the term MD typically assess general distress. Scales using the term MI typically assess several specific outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Results show how the terms MD and MI are applied in research. Several scales were identified as appropriate for research and clinical use. Recommendations for the application, development, and validation of MD and MI scales are provided.